Given our recent bit of nasty editing by 128.146.246.204 on this, I think we definitely need to expand this article to include some of the controversy. I'll try to work on a section about the controversial nature of the WR soon, but of course if anyone wants to beat me to it, they're most welcome. Stuff like 128.146.246.204's edits are not. --Rdr. Andrew 21:25, 19 Feb 2005 (CST)

Contents

Vandalism

If the vandalism of OrthodoxWiki continues by 128.146.246.217 / 128.146.246.204 / 128.146.246.246 (a visitor from osuweb.net), I'm going to ban every IP from that domain I see. In the meantime, this article is going to be protected (editable only by sysops) for a week. --Rdr. Andrew 12:26, 20 Feb 2005 (CST)

Hey, you want to write your OPINION, that's fine. But don't lie about the Orthodox faith. The Orthodox Church - ANY JURISDICTION - has NEVER been "in communion" with Roman Catholic schismatics. Your implication that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is in any way a "branch" or other "brotherly member" of the Uniat church is Libelous and must be stopped.

I'm going to presume that this paragraph is from the Reader Michael (OCA) mentioned on Talk:Main Page.

If you believe that the article as it currently stands is merely opinion and is "lies," then you are welcome to offer up edits of this article which reflect another point of view. However, accusations that WR Orthodox are "Roman Catholics" is simply inaccurate. They are not in communion with the Vatican, and most never have been. Those that used to be broke communion from Rome in becoming Orthodox (or usually sometime before).

"Uniate" (as you used in your edits) is also not accurate. The Unia specifically refers to parishes which had been formerly Orthodox, broke from the Orthodox Church, and then went into union with Rome. The only similarity that WR Orthodox have with Rome is that they share common roots for their liturgical tradition (and since Vatican II, the deviation has become quite wide).

You say that you're in the OCA. Your bishops are fully in communion with the bishops who care for most of the WR parishes. Have you called your bishops to break communion with those who, in your view, continue to promulgate Roman Catholicism in the guise of Orthodoxy? You might better claim that the WR is an attempt to promulgate Orthodoxy in the guise of Roman Catholicism. (After all, the "guise" of the WR is much more similar to Rome than to Constantinople.) I genuinely and seriously wonder whether you have even read the article.

As you say, ROCOR is not a "branch" of the Uniates, and the article is not claiming that, either. ROCOR does have Western Rite parishes, and at least two WR monasteries (one in Rhode Island and the other in New Zealand). (If you doubt this, I recommend you contact their administration to determine this for yourself.) This does not make ROCOR Uniates.

In any event, you have thus far shown yourself nearly incapable of contributing to OrthodoxWiki in a rational, charitable manner, throwing accusations about without attempting to work within the standards set here. Your contributions so far are precisely the sort of thing we're working to avoid. Now, if you want to work within our standards and represent heretofore unrepresented points of view in a rational, encyclopedic manner, you are most welcome. If, on the other hand, you are not willing to do so, we'll work to prevent your vandalism. It's your choice.

In the meantime, I'll make some notes in this article reflecting your opinions in the "Criticism" section. --Rdr. Andrew 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (CST)

New Zealand

Rdr Andrew,

i am unaware of any western rite monastery in new zealand.
there was a group in the 70's that started a skete, but firstly i'm not sure if they are western rite (probably not), and secondly in any event they went under the serbian diocese.

Unprotected

I've returned this article to "unprotected" status a day early, because of the change of heart of Sputnik. Glory be to God for all things! --Rdr. Andrew 08:03, 26 Feb 2005 (CST)

Thoughts on Criticisms of the Western Rite.

One of the things I think was missed in the criticism section of this article was that what many find disquieting about Western Rite parishes is that most, if not all, are primarily convert parishes. In some circles there is a feeling that while the rite itself is unobjectionable, there is a danger that these parishes want to be Orthodox but not too Orthodox: they do not want to give up the comforting familiarity of their former religion and might thus come to further 'infect' the Church with other (this time unwarranted) innovations brought in from their former church. This, I think, is behind the worry about the lack of a liturgical tradition that is referenced in the main article.

Or to put this another way, if a long established parish with multigenerational families of Orthodox were to change peacefully from the Byzantine Rite to the Western Rite then many who are now uneasy with the latter would find it easier to become reconciled with it. Of course, other objections such as the uniformity of liturgical practice and so on would still be made but the nature of discourse would, I think, be different. (But not, probably, better - consider new-calendar v old-calendar.)

You can, of course, make these additions to the article if you should so choose. I wonder about the idea of an ER parish becoming WR, though. Why would they do that? It seems something of a non sequitur.

I've heard this criticism, though, and I'll note it in the appropriate section, along with some of the counters I've heard, as well. --Rdr. Andrew 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (CST)

I did not want to make changes to the main article since I don't have references that I can point to. Since my comments are anecdotal I prefer to leave them in a discussion until I (or someone else) can point to something that is more than what may be a couple of ill-remembered stories.

As for a putative parish changing rites, I do not expect this to happen since, as you say, why would they do that? I'm using this illustration in an attempt to explain how a long-standing liturgical tradition acts as a buffer to criticism and thus might help to blunt some arguments. Put crudely "St ----'s church has been around for a hundred years and is well respected for its stability, good works, etc. It changed to the Western Rite five years ago for reasons of its own and, while I do not understand why, I trust them so it must be ok."

My powers of expression aren't usually that good, and certainly get worse when it gets near to midnight, but I hope that I've made myself clearer. I have absolutely no desire to be controversial but thought I'd add information about something that I thought might have been missed. In any case, I look forward to reading any updates when they come around.

No worries! As you can see from the article, not everything on OrthodoxWiki is documented (much like the Orthodox Church itself), but the fact that both you and I have heard this criticism is, I think, enough to merit it a mention.

I understood what you meant about the respectability of an established ER parish becoming WR, but the sheer unlikelihood of that ever happening makes it something of a moot point, don't you think?

In any event, judging at least from your comments here, I'd say that your expression powers are surely good enough to find use here on OrthodoxWiki—perhaps you'd consider registering an account and helping us out to the extent that you are able and inclined to do so. --Rdr. Andrew 19:14, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Negotiations

In the late 1990s, negotiations had been underway with the Church of Serbia for the Eglise to come under its jurisdiction, but NATO's bombing of Kosovo in 1999 abruptly ended those hopes, as France was then seen by the Serbians as complicit in its persecution by the West. Talks reportedly resumed in 2004.

I must say I find this paragraph a little bizarre - maybe it's my American mentality of separation of church and state, but why would church negotiations be affected by what the French government does? And why is the reported necessary? Either they did or they didn't, and if it's a maybe, another wording might be more appropriate since reportedly sounds like someone is suspicious of certain claims which are being made. (And if this is the case, the concern should be made explicit). Thanks, Fr. John

Regarding the issue of breaking off talks after NATO began bombing Serbia -- I think it was essentially an issue of guilt by association. (Notice, for instance, how Americans started boycotting or renaming various French cultural products simply because the French government didn't support the invasion of Iraq.)

The latter bit is part of a sentence I put in there. I used "reportedly," because I have no source for the information other than someone who is not part of either group saying that it is so, without citing any information. Since this is hardly a "common knowledge" issue, I'd at least like some sort of published source before removing the "hedge" word. --Rdr. Andrew 22:55, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)